There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thread Closed 
Are Tigers 'Brainier' Than Lions?

GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#92
( This post was last modified: 10-09-2015, 02:19 AM by GuateGojira )

I HAVE IT!!! Yes, I finally have the entire chapter about the tiger of the new book of Dr Hunter. I started with that of the lion, but I still need page 205, 207 and 208. I will have it with time. By the way, I also have the first page about the leopard, the jaguar, the puma and the snow leopard! Lol 

Well, like I said before, it seems that the source for the skull size of Panthera species is the document about Yamaguchi et al. (2009) about the cranial capacity of lions and tigers compared (I posted the entire document here in previous posts). The ranges of Greatest Skull Length (GSL) are:

Lion: 26.7 - 42 mm.
Tiger: 25.3 - 37.9 mm.
Jaguar: 20.4 - 30.6 mm.
Leopard: 17 - 28.2 mm.

For reasons that I don't understand, they ignored the skull measurements of Mazák (1981 - 1983) which present a maximum figure of 383 mm. However, it is to note that the next largest tiger skulls, measured by Mazák were an Indian and an Amur specimen with a GSL of 378 mm each.

I remember that @peter and Wave... once discussed that those large skulls recorded for Amur tigers (406 mm in China, 400 mm in Harbin and 383 mm in Germany) have disappeared from museum collections (probably sold to private owners) and taking in count that Yamaguchi and his team only take in count skulls measured by themselves, it seems obvious why they discard the specimen of 383 mm. However, this still don't explain why Hunter (2015) do it, as he should know that Mazák was the most accurate observer in the tiger skull department.

Other problem is that no one has gone to India-Nepal to investigate the large skulls at those museums. In the Indian Museum (Calcutta) there is the report of a skull of 381 mm in GSL and in Nepal, Dr McDougall (1977) reported a skull of 381 mm in GSL. Apart from that, there are several other reports of large skulls in Cooch Behar that measured up to 400 mm, but there is no evidence about where are (or went) those specimens. Finally, Rowland Ward measured personally a large tiger skull of 384 mm in GSL, sadly its resting place is unknown. All those large Indian-Nepal tiger skulls will be unknown to modern studies until someone manage to measure and report them in a modern scientific paper. It is a shame that the only India-Nepal skulls that we know are those in the westerns museums.

My doubt here is if that skull of 37.9 mm is from any of the two male tigers reported by Mazák at 378 mm or if there is a "new" specimen (let's take in count that tigers are not been "legally" hunted since the 1970). Other thing, is this an Amur or a Bengal? The document don't state it. I have saw that Yamaguchi and his team mixed captive and wild specimens, which is a shame, but at least in the case of tigers, the wild specimens reported are larger than the captive ones (based on the averages), which suggest that this large male had a wild origin.

On the lion side, the skull of 42 mm could had any origin, and we most see that the captive specimens reported are larger than the wild ones. However, the commonly accepted record from a wild lion came from a specimen with a skull of 419 mm in GSL, hunted in South Africa. It was first reported in a scientific document by Hemmer in 1974, however he did not measure it personally but he quotes it from F. V. Kirby (1896; male lion with a total length of 290 cm in straight line) and was corroborated by Rowland Ward, which measure it personally.

The record of 432 mm for a lion skull came only from Rowland Ward since the 4rt edition (as far I remember) and it was not measured by him, but it was a "Owner's measurements". It is reported at the Berlin Museum (which one, is not stated, as there are several museums in that city), but those that have read all the story of this skull most know that the measurements came from the hunter of this specimen, not from the Museum, and taking in count that Yamaguchi and his team went to Berlin, it seems that this large skull was: 1-Incorrectly measured by his "owner" or 2-No longer exist. The large tiger skull of 419 mm reported by Hewett is also lost, so we can see how this "giant" specimens just vanish in time with no other evidence (probably, in hand of private collectors, what a shame).

As far I know, the largest jaguar skull measured 32.4 mm and came from a male in the Pantanal (De Almeida, 1990), it last location is probably with its owner and not in a museum. The skull of 30.6 mm was probably of the same area

The longest leopard skull came from Persia and it is at a museum. It has been measured two times:

1st. - Kiabi et al. (2002) report it at 288 mm GSL and 181 mm in ZW, it had a picture.
2nd. Moqanaki et al. (2010) report it at 281.35 mm in GSL and 178.95 mm in ZW, it had a picture.

Moqanaki et al. (2010) states that "was recently again measured precisely", which suggest that the last measurements were more accurate, although we most take in count that some shrink of the bone can happen. The skull is kept by Dr. Bahram Kiabi (Faculty of Biosciences, Shahid Beheshti University) in Tehran and is claimed as the largest leopard skull on record. However, Yamaguchi et al. (2009) did not mention any source from this area and as they studied only European museums, is possible that an equally large skull is housed in an European museum. Maybe @chui_ could give us more details on the leopard department.

As far I know, no other reports of large lion or tiger skulls has been in literature, so it seems that the longest skulls for a lion and tiger, in scientific literature are of 420 mm and 383 mm respectively.

@peter, you can give us more details, as you are the one that have more data on skulls.
3 users Like GuateGojira's post




Messages In This Thread
Are Tigers 'Brainier' Than Lions? - sanjay - 05-25-2014, 12:39 AM
RE: Are Tigers 'Brainier' Than Lions? - GuateGojira - 10-09-2015, 02:14 AM



Users browsing this thread:
9 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB